Why don't we Lojack everyone?

[Enforcer Talen]

For those unfamiliar with the name, Lojack is a theft prevention and recovery system for cars in which a transmitter inside the car can be used by the police to track its location at all times.

In "Demolition Man", they had subdermal implants which the police could use to track the locations and life signs of every person in the city. Police notification of a murder was nearly instantaneous, and detective work was vastly simplified (imagine if OJ Simpson had such a device in him on the night of Nicole's murder).

Of course, this was derided as "fascist" in the movie, and is universally derided as such when the movie is discussed among movie fans. But what, precisely, is wrong with it? Is it an invasion of privacy? It's not as if they have cameras pointing into your bedroom; they only know your geographical location. Is it such a huge secret where you happen to be at any given time? What's the big harm?

Think of the lives that could be saved from instant dispatch of paramedics to heart-attack victims, for example, or the quick resolutions to child abduction cases, not to mention countless other crimes. Why would it be so bad?

We occasionally hear similar arguments about cameras facing public areas; is it really such an intrusion into your privacy for people to see you walking down a public street? When you're in your home, the only thing the police would know is that you're in your home; they wouldn't be watching you masturbate in the shower.

Thoughts?

wouldnt that be too much power in the hands of the government? it could be used for good, of course, but its a lot of power, and easily corrupting. imagine the communist fetish of the mcarthy era with these things active.

[Ice]

I don't mind really. So what if they know where you're going? If they can arrest you for going to opposition political rallies, then either A) that rally did something illegal or B) you have bigger problems with government than some implant in your head.

Sure, it's more information the government or whoever has, and I've seen objection to that. But why do you care in the first place? Unless you wish to hide who you are, anyway... Like has been said before, there are far easier and more economical ways of seeing who goes to political rallies and demonstrations. Ditto for strip clubs, adult book stores, pagan rituals, etc.

And as for the RIAA argument one person brought up that has just stuck in my mind...

Imagine if the MPAA or RIAA was able to see what you DVDs and CDs you looked at in a store and then monitored your Internet traffic to make sure you weren't illegally obtaining those items (everything that goes across the lines and/or is stored on an ISP server is up for grabs, and it helps to know what your looking for).

Explain to me how they're gonna pull that one off. The implants being described give a location, not a video feed of what your eyes see! All they would possibly know is that you were in a music/video store. Big whoopdeedo. And the internet thing has little to do with this; it's another topic entirely.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

But I would never allow myself to be radio-tagged like some antelope on the Discovery Channel.

Then don't carry a cell phone. Do have any idea how stupidifyling easy it is track those things, much less listen in on cell phone calls? And for the government, its damn cheap.

And that's exactly why I will never own one. Pay phones are bad enough after the Patriot Act.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

I don't mind really. So what if they know where you're going? If they can arrest you for going to opposition political rallies, then either A) that rally did something illegal or B) you have bigger problems with government than some implant in your head.

That's a pretty idealistic assumption. You're assuming here that TPTB will only use your location data for benign purposes they can already achieve without 24/7 real-time tracking.

Sure, it's more information the government or whoever has, and I've seen objection to that. But why do you care in the first place? Unless you wish to hide who you are, anyway... Like has been said before, there are far easier and more economical ways of seeing who goes to political rallies and demonstrations. Ditto for strip clubs, adult book stores, pagan rituals, etc.

Yes, there are. So since the only real purpose of these devices is to track people's locations in the same manner we track the locations of tagged animals or personal property (and maybe that's the real hotspot here) the only legitimate use I can think of for personal location transmitters is for emergencies.

Now I will offer a small concession in the realm of tracking children. A minor is not legally responsible for him or herself (generally speaking) and is less able to fend for him or herself in a crisis situation due to lack of resources, experience and capability. For that reason, I would find a transmitter acceptable -- but, again, not an implanted transmitter.

[Ice]

That's a pretty idealistic assumption. You're assuming here that TPTB will only use your location data for benign purposes they can already achieve without 24/7 real-time tracking.

Well, what would it gain them to do otherwise?

Yes, there are. So since the only real purpose of these devices is to track people's locations in the same manner we track the locations of tagged animals or personal property (and maybe that's the real hotspot here) the only legitimate use I can think of for personal location transmitters is for emergencies.

Now I will offer a small concession in the realm of tracking children. A minor is not legally responsible for him or herself (generally speaking) and is less able to fend for him or herself in a crisis situation due to lack of resources, experience and capability. For that reason, I would find a transmitter acceptable -- but, again, not an implanted transmitter.

The problem I see with the "only use for emergencies" thing is, what if you don't have time to call it an emergency, to activate it or whatever? All they'd have to do is shoot you with a tranq dart and you'd just "fall asleep" which isn't going to set off an emergency alarm in and of itself (and if it does, the police will be very busy people!).

Unless you have it set to measure blood chemical composition, something I saw someone say "no" to earlier (presumably for the sake of taking drugs, unless there's some other reason I'm unaware of). In which case, if you are taking drugs, then right or wrong, you're breaking the law. Or they're taking prescription drugs. For the former, you're breaking the law. For the latter, the government could already find that out if it truely wanted to anyway.

And don't get started on whether those "War on Drugs" laws are right...this isn't the thread for it! And I'm not trying to hijack it into that, either; I'm just pointing out what there would be in measuring blood chemical compisition, something I feel would be useful, with or without the drug issue.

I mean, think about it: for every new thing the law comes up with, criminals come up with a counter. So if we had this, then kidnappers would and the like would be more akin to try and do you in by some means that makes it look like you fell asleep. And without measuring your blood-chem, they could do it. With measuring it, then certain things going into it would set off an alarm, notifying the police that someone's trying to put you under (exceptions would, obviously, be made in hospitals, dentists, etc.) That, and it can help try and catch people who may overdose before it's too late.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

That's a pretty idealistic assumption. You're assuming here that TPTB will only use your location data for benign purposes they can already achieve without 24/7 real-time tracking.

Well, what would it gain them to do otherwise?

I don't know. But based on my own admittedly shaky feelings about it, I'd prefer to simply not find out.

Yes, there are. So since the only real purpose of these devices is to track people's locations in the same manner we track the locations of tagged animals or personal property (and maybe that's the real hotspot here) the only legitimate use I can think of for personal location transmitters is for emergencies.

Now I will offer a small concession in the realm of tracking children. A minor is not legally responsible for him or herself (generally speaking) and is less able to fend for him or herself in a crisis situation due to lack of resources, experience and capability. For that reason, I would find a transmitter acceptable -- but, again, not an implanted transmitter.

The problem I see with the "only use for emergencies" thing is, what if you don't have time to call it an emergency, to activate it or whatever? All they'd have to do is shoot you with a tranq dart and you'd just "fall asleep" which isn't going to set off an emergency alarm in and of itself (and if it does, the police will be very busy people!).

It's easy enough to activate once you regain consciousness. If you don't regain consciousness, fat fucking lot of good it did you.

Unless you have it set to measure blood chemical composition, something I saw someone say "no" to earlier (presumably for the sake of taking drugs, unless there's some other reason I'm unaware of). In which case, if you are taking drugs, then right or wrong, you're breaking the law. Or they're taking prescription drugs. For the former, you're breaking the law. For the latter, the government could already find that out if it truely wanted to anyway.

Exactly. Yet another demonstration that such devices, for the most part, are high-tech answers to replace low-tech answers that mostly work just fine already. The potential benefit does not outweigh what I see to be a larger potential liability.

And don't get started on whether those "War on Drugs" laws are right...this isn't the thread for it! And I'm not trying to hijack it into that, either; I'm just pointing out what there would be in measuring blood chemical compisition, something I feel would be useful, with or without the drug issue.

Again, there are already devices for this purpose that (to my knowledge) are perfectly adequate.[/quote]

I mean, think about it: for every new thing the law comes up with, criminals come up with a counter. So if we had this, then kidnappers would and the like would be more akin to try and do you in by some means that makes it look like you fell asleep. And without measuring your blood-chem, they could do it. With measuring it, then certain things going into it would set off an alarm, notifying the police that someone's trying to put you under (exceptions would, obviously, be made in hospitals, dentists, etc.) That, and it can help try and catch people who may overdose before it's too late.[/quote]

Or they'd simply do their best to cut the fucking thing out of you before moving you to a more secure location. So what you might have walked away from unhurt could now mean a painful extraction (depending on the device's dependency on and placement in the body) and replacement. And you think losing your car keys is a pain in the ass...

[Glass Pearl Player]

Incorrect. The potential usefulness of location tracking from the perspective of police and health department purposes has been very clearly outlined in this thread already.

Then let me point out one potential for abuse that lies in a tracking -not emergency beacon- system:
Assume such a system had been implemented, and everyone had a broadcasting chip. Let's say there's another war -Uncle Sam has led some in the past, more might follow- and there's a Anti-War-Demo in Washington D.C. What could happen: Someone could simply take a 'snapshot' of the demo: reading and storing the IDs of all tracking chips that happen to be at the demo. Imagine this would happen at each and every demo. This could happen. Surely, it would be forbidden, but other things are forbidden too, and still they do happen. This info could then be used for purposes that others already mentioned.

And I did point out the sheer volume of data such a system would generate in my previous post, did I? Adding medical data to the signal would increase it even more. My question to you as an engineer: Is such a system feasible at all? And is it really worth the expense?

So I'd say that only a emergency beacon system* is acceptable, feasible and affordable. Everything more is just a waste of taxpayer's money -your money- for a sword that has one edge to many. Wether we actually need it? Well, we have done quite well without it, so shouldn't we concentrate on other problems?

[*] Yes, Ice, there is the problem on how to activate that toy. I'd vote for a combo of panic button and, uhm... something that finds out wether you lost conciousness, are dead or just sleeping. Any suggestions for such a device? And no, constant tracking is not a solution to that problem.

[His Divine Shadow]

If one could turn it off(or rather only the location portions, the health-monitoring should still work) I wouldn't mind, I'd rather not get speeding tickets.

[jegs2]

Thoughts?

Why not go a step further? An implant could also be a link to one's bank account, thus eliminating the need for credit cards or perhaps even hard currency, both of which can be stolen or taken from you during a robbery. So, not only could the implant allow police to know your geographical location, but you could also walk into a store, pick up some items, and walk out without ever having to go to a cash register line. The same system could be implemented in one's workplace in order to credit employees accounts, or at the fuel station when one fills his vehicle.

[Peregrin Toker]

So...your answer is 'I don't know', then? Have you defined who gets to know this info, besides, 'The Government'?

The authorities which are charged with keeping law and order.

Have we decided if individual citizens have the right to know, on request, EXACTLY who has access to your info? Have we implemented laws which prohibit non-lisenced agencies from accessing the info? Have we established and made public and voted on the reasons for which an individual would have access to your location? Do we understand the benefits at all? And after all that, is there any reason left to be afraid of it (and if so, how can we fix that)?

They should almost have a right to know on request exactly who have access! The very idea of such a system allows for tremendous abuse of authority, and if somebody who have even a remote tendency to abuse the system - they should NOT be giving the task of tracking others.

Your job is to make sure that nobody can fuck with it, that it can't be abused or disadvantage individuals or the population. Can you do it, or not? think you'll find that it's impossible to just cast things like this aside out of hand - without making an effort to establish what the variables are between technology, personal rights vs. benefits to society, and legislation.
/quote]

Whether I can make sure nobody can abuse this system?? Well, all I can think of is restrictment of access to the information gathered by lojack implants. This wouldn't do that much, but then again it'll limit the abuse of the system to a lesser extent. But it does not solve all problems with the system!! The overseer, even though he/she hasn't been punished before for any abuse of authority, can still use the system to blacklist personal enemies.

[Lagmonster]

The overseer, even though he/she hasn't been punished before for any abuse of authority, can still use the system to blacklist personal enemies.

This is lunatic. Many celebs and politicians live under constant surveillance from reporters, sleaze rag scoop mongers, etc. If for any reason you were a political enemy of someone (for whatever reason) and they wanted to know where you are, there are zillions of ways to do it, from hiring an investigator to looking up your address and visiting you at home. Besides which, what are you afraid they're going to do? Walk up to you on the street and ask you why you spent so much time at the mall?

You seem concerned with what specific evil people in the government are going to do, without having the slightest clue as to who they are, why they would, what they could POSSIBLY do with the information ("Look, Bob is in the deli!" "We have him now, the damn pickle-loving swine!"), and how they got access to it in the first place. In fact, I think you picture the system as having a person sitting at a terminal 24 hours a day watching you walk around town, when no such setup is required or even functionally sensible.

[Ted C]

Why not go a step further? An implant could also be a link to one's bank account, thus eliminating the need for credit cards or perhaps even hard currency, both of which can be stolen or taken from you during a robbery. So, not only could the implant allow police to know your geographical location, but you could also walk into a store, pick up some items, and walk out without ever having to go to a cash register line. The same system could be implemented in one's workplace in order to credit employees accounts, or at the fuel station when one fills his vehicle.

You're not getting ready to allude to the Biblical "mark of the Beast", are you?

[Ted C]

No, because the government has no need to be able to track my whereabouts and movements.

Incorrect. The potential usefulness of location tracking from the perspective of police and health department purposes has been very clearly outlined in this thread already.

Since I am not a criminal, the government has no need to know where I am. Are you suggesting that I should be monitored just in case I someday become a criminal?

All the others are cases in which I would want the government to know where to find me, which is a much different situation.

Immunization serves the legitimate purpose of protecting other children from the disease. Nonetheless, I believe parents could refuse to allow immunization if they wanted to.

Not if they want their kids to be allowed to attend public school.

True, but that's a consequence the parent would simply have to accept. Home schooling is still allowed in this country, and many parents prefer it to public schools anyway.

It's the same thing with a national ID such as your social security number. Technically, you aren't forced to get one. But if you want a job, you have to get one.

Yes, unfortunately, that's the case, and the SSN has already been hijacked for many purposes other than the one for which it was originally intended.

No one is saying that. We're saying that you already accept numerous intrusions into your personal affairs which are much more onerous than the police and health department knowing your geographical location and whether you're still breathing at any given time.

"In for a penny, in for a pound?"

Would you please answer my question as to why you think it's bad for the Star Trek Federation to be able to track the movements of all of its citizens while you defend the same capability for a modern government? The problem I see with this tool is its potential for easily muzzling political opposition.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Thoughts?

Why not go a step further? An implant could also be a link to one's bank account, thus eliminating the need for credit cards or perhaps even hard currency, both of which can be stolen or taken from you during a robbery. So, not only could the implant allow police to know your geographical location, but you could also walk into a store, pick up some items, and walk out without ever having to go to a cash register line. The same system could be implemented in one's workplace in order to credit employees accounts, or at the fuel station when one fills his vehicle.

Again, this would only create a new kind of robbery -- where before a thief would steal your wallet and perhaps only leave you shaken and enraged, now he'll have to steal your finger or your eye (or wherever it is that the chip is implanted, because for medical reasons it'll probably be the same place on most people.)

[Peregrin Toker]

The overseer, even though he/she hasn't been punished before for any abuse of authority, can still use the system to blacklist personal enemies.

This is lunatic. Many celebs and politicians live under constant surveillance from reporters, sleaze rag scoop mongers, etc.

But now, everyone would live under constant surveillance.

If for any reason you were a political enemy of someone (for whatever reason) and they wanted to know where you are, there are zillions of ways to do it, from hiring an investigator to looking up your address and visiting you at home.

Yes, it's already possible to stalk people, but "lojacking" would make the stalking process much easier because it makes it possible to stalk with pinpoint accuracy.

Besides which, what are you afraid they're going to do? Walk up to you on the street and ask you why you spent so much time at the mall?

Ever heard of the way Neo-Nazis blacklist people who criticize them publicly? If they - or other extremist organizations - plant spies in the police, wouldn't this lead to a lot of assassinations of seemingly innocent people.

[jegs2]

You're not getting ready to allude to the Biblical "mark of the Beast", are you?

I don't intend to be around when he hits the scene, so not really. Besides, it makes good sense, doesn't it?

[jegs2]

Again, this would only create a new kind of robbery -- where before a thief would steal your wallet and perhaps only leave you shaken and enraged, now he'll have to steal your finger or your eye (or wherever it is that the chip is implanted, because for medical reasons it'll probably be the same place on most people.)

Shouldn't be hard to ensure that the implant is automatically deactiviated if it detects too significant of a temperature change or if it detects the absense of a pulse. Such failsafes would render tactics you mention useless.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Again, this would only create a new kind of robbery -- where before a thief would steal your wallet and perhaps only leave you shaken and enraged, now he'll have to steal your finger or your eye (or wherever it is that the chip is implanted, because for medical reasons it'll probably be the same place on most people.)

Shouldn't be hard to ensure that the implant is automatically deactiviated if it detects too significant of a temperature change or if it detects the absense of a pulse. Such failsafes would render tactics you mention useless.

Well, we can certainly speculate that such a device could deactivate itself when it detects oxygen, and that would certainly stop would-be thieves... after awhile, and until they find a way around the failsafe.

EDIT: This scenario, by the way, lends a new and gruesome meaning to the label of "Hacker".

[Ted C]

You're not getting ready to allude to the Biblical "mark of the Beast", are you?

I don't intend to be around when he hits the scene, so not really. Besides, it makes good sense, doesn't it?

Only if you're sufficiently blasé about government monitoring that you don't care if they can examine every single purchase you make in your life. Good for convenience; bad for privacy.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

You're not getting ready to allude to the Biblical "mark of the Beast", are you?

I don't intend to be around when he hits the scene, so not really. Besides, it makes good sense, doesn't it?

Only if you're sufficiently blasé about government monitoring that you don't care if they can examine every single purchase you make in your life. Good for convenience; bad for privacy.

This is already a (speculative or real) problem with credit and debit cards.

[Ted C]

I don't intend to be around when he hits the scene, so not really. Besides, it makes good sense, doesn't it?

Only if you're sufficiently blasé about government monitoring that you don't care if they can examine every single purchase you make in your life. Good for convenience; bad for privacy.

This is already a (speculative or real) problem with credit and debit cards.

But you can always pay cash if you're concerned for your privacy.

[Ice]

It's easy enough to activate once you regain consciousness. If you don't regain consciousness, fat fucking lot of good it did you.

Maybe, maybe not. That assumes that by the time they take you where they want to take you and you wake up, they haven't found some way to jam the beacon.

With a constant location thing, an alarm could be set off if, say, it detects you falling asleep...on a public sidewalk somewhere. Or, if they're gonna jam it, then it sets off an alarm when it loses your location, which at the least alerts the authorities to a problem, so they know A) that something is going on and B) have at least a place to start (where the signal was lost).

And again, being able to read blood chemical composition means that if they drugged you, an alarm would be set off, and they could come and get you, all before they take you to their secret hideout, and get help to you sooner.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

It's easy enough to activate once you regain consciousness. If you don't regain consciousness, fat fucking lot of good it did you.

Maybe, maybe not. That assumes that by the time they take you where they want to take you and you wake up, they haven't found some way to jam the beacon.

The only difference between Mike's proposed implanted tracker and my counterproposal of a wearable tracker is that one can be removed from the person without surgery and the other can't. If they can jam a portable unit, chances are they can jam an implant just as easily.

With a constant location thing, an alarm could be set off if, say, it detects you falling asleep...on a public sidewalk somewhere. Or, if they're gonna jam it, then it sets off an alarm when it loses your location, which at the least alerts the authorities to a problem, so they know A) that something is going on and B) have at least a place to start (where the signal was lost).

Which, again, would be the same with a portable transmitter if you knew when to activate it. There could be two stages to the transmitter's settings. Yellow Alert and Red Alert, if you will. A user could set it to Yellow Alert, which would begin broadcast. At that point, the device would have autonomous security protocols -- it could require a fingerprint with bioelectric signature to deactivate, or a phone call to the tracking center with information and voice authentication. If the device is jammed or destroyed, Red Alert is initiated and authorities can respond to the last known location.

And again, being able to read blood chemical composition means that if they drugged you, an alarm would be set off, and they could come and get you, all before they take you to their secret hideout, and get help to you sooner.

Or it means that if you decide to enjoy that rare Saturday Morning joint, the cops are guaranteed to show up and interrupt your morning cartoons.

[Ice]

The only difference between Mike's proposed implanted tracker and my counterproposal of a wearable tracker is that one can be removed from the person without surgery and the other can't. If they can jam a portable unit, chances are they can jam an implant just as easily.

True, but if they jam one that's on all the time, it would set off that alarm.

Which, again, would be the same with a portable transmitter if you knew when to activate it. There could be two stages to the transmitter's settings. Yellow Alert and Red Alert, if you will. A user could set it to Yellow Alert, which would begin broadcast. At that point, the device would have autonomous security protocols -- it could require a fingerprint with bioelectric signature to deactivate, or a phone call to the tracking center with information and voice authentication. If the device is jammed or destroyed, Red Alert is initiated and authorities can respond to the last known location.

But who's to say you even get the chance, as opposed to them coming up behind you and sticking a chloroform rag to your mouth?

Or it means that if you decide to enjoy that rare Saturday Morning joint, the cops are guaranteed to show up and interrupt your morning cartoons.

Perhaps, but hey, you're breaking the law. Got a problem with it, go get it changed. But like I said before, I'm not interested in debating that, especially not in this thread. And I've provided other reasons why monitering your blood-chem would be a good thing (saving you from overdose, able to tell if you've been injected with something which, by the way, would be handy for you paranoid types who think the gov't is gonna truth serum you, and so on).

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

My big objections to LoJack implants are as follows:

1. There's no reason to surgically implant such a device in the human body when it would be less expensive and medically safer to use one or more portable miniaturized transmitters built into clothing or portable consumer electronics.

2. The application of this device is to track humans, ostensibly for their own protection. The underlying implication being that people are incapable of protecting themselves. Whether such an implication was intentional or not, that is the impression I get from the proposal, and I find that implication mildly offensive.

3. The device, as proposed, does not seem to be designed to be used by the individual whose location it broadcasts.

4. The device is unnecessary for any benign purpose -- similar tracking systems already exist, and are much less intrusive (physically and otherwise.)